Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 875 posts

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#161

Post by sandworm101 »

cbanek wrote: post #55
sandworm101 wrote: post #40

>>> When I first met him in 2012, he estimated he had set aside about $2 million for his and his wife's retirement. I don't know about everyone else on HN, but having 2mil in the bank is not my definition of "Broke". I want to see what trusts have been setup. What life estates has he retained? I credit him for giving most all of it away, but "broke" doesn't mean you are worth 0.0001% of some huge number. Broke means…

With all due reference to Shai-Hulud, I'd say broke has a lot of different possible meanings. It could mean you declared bankruptcy, have negative net worth, or maybe just like 99% gone (while you don't think it means that by definition, and I agree, I think socially we could agree with that. Someone with a dollar in their pocket isn't broke, but is also broke.). If anything, having enough money to take care of his n…

>> you're kind of "stealing" from, in that you aren't fulfilling the legal and financial obligation.

Stealing requires conscious choice. Not being able to pay a debt isn't a choice and therefore shouldn't be described as stealing.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#162

Post by olivermarks »

hamburglar wrote: post #115
olivermarks wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't assume Feeney has a negative opinion of Gates, everything he has said publicly has been supportive of Gates. Given Gates central role in driving for global pandemic vaccines, I wonder what Feeney thinks of that huge global and very public project. The Ft Gates oped link above is from today, I just read it before opening HN and seeing the Forbes Feeney post.

Are you suggesting that Feeney thinks less of it because it's public giving? I just get the impression that that's Feeney's style, not that he thinks other philanthropists need to act that way.

i am not making any suggestions, I am wondering what Feeney, who has quietly donated huge sums with no fanfare or hype (example: SF UCSF children's hospital, see elsewhere in these comments, is named the Benioff children's hospital despite the fact Feeney donated more than Benioff for the hospital). I have no idea what Feeney makes of Gates in 2020 but I'd love to know. No insinuations, me projecting what I think he thinks...

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#163

Post by triceratops »

jedberg wrote: post #122
Cerealkiller050 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Especially being an American" I have always heard the complete opposite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Giving_Index https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/12/28/the_ge...

Most countries don't let you deduct your donations from your taxes. It's hard to compare levels of giving across nations because of this. A lot of people only donate to reduce their tax bill. Also, because we don't have a social safety net in the US, a lot of people donate to make up for that, which is certainly noble, but would be far less necessary if we had a stronger social safety net that more evenly distributed…

> A lot of people only donate to reduce their tax bill.

It's still money gone from your pocket. It doesn't save you money overall.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#164

Post by zpeti »

superasn wrote: post #160

Is a person who invests that money for-profit but makes giant advancements in maths/science while doing it an equally big giver? Take for example, Elon musk. Even though he hasn't given monet away to charities like Chuck, his for-profit enterprises like electric cars, solar farms, spacex and possibly neuralink might just have been things that end up equally great for humanity. So if you have billions I guess timtowtd…

Also - does he actually "have money"?

Tesla and SpaceX don't make a profit or pay dividends. My guess is he finances his entire life from taking on debt which is secured against his stock.

So how exactly are people like him supposed to just give money away? What happens to the stock he owns then? Would he forgo control of his companies?

How would he pay taxes on that income anyway?

Lots of questions the billionaires-shouldn't-exist crowd have no concept of.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#165

Post by haltingproblem »

Chuck Feeney embodies what Gandhi said about the rich having wealth in trust and using it for the good of society:

"“supposing I have come by a fair amount of wealth — either by way of legacy, or by means of trade and industry — I must know that all that wealth does not belong to me; what belongs to me is the right to an honourable livelihood, no better than that enjoyed by millions of others. The rest of my wealth belongs to the community and must be used for the welfare of the community.” [1]

Each time I bike past Cornell Tech, Feeney's generosity awes me. What a mensch. Makes me proud to be human.

[1] https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/mahatma-ga...

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#166

Post by bryanlarsen »

hirundo wrote: post #149

Compare two billionaires. One stops and carefully donates his money to have the most impact. He ends up "officially broke." The other doubles down on for profit enterprises, but focuses on those with the most impact, like electrifying a fossil fueled sector of the economy or making us a multi-planetary species. The profits are reinvested to accomplish these goals. He ends up richer than ever. It isn't clear that the…

Musk has signed the giving pledge, so he might end up doing both. He wants to die on Mars, and it seems likely that if it would require the bulk of his fortune to make us a multi-planetary species, he would commit it.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#167

Post by Baeocystin »

zpeti wrote: post #151
BrainInAJar wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seems like that was by design. It is. Philanthropy exists to launder the reputations of the rich, on the one hand, and are paternalistic on the other. The only things that get funding are things that can attract the attention of our "betters." If we had taxed them on the front end to the point they couldn't become billionaires in the first place then people in general (through democracy) can decide what causes are…

I am amazed at how easily you skip over the fact that this means government gets to spend that money. As if that were some ideal outcome which would solve all problems. Which government exactly is it that you think is excellent at solving societal problems and spending taxes efficiently?

Not the person you asked, but I think Singapore does a good job of things. Their civil servant class is exceptionally skilled.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#168

Post by Paul-ish »

hirundo wrote: post #149

Compare two billionaires. One stops and carefully donates his money to have the most impact. He ends up "officially broke." The other doubles down on for profit enterprises, but focuses on those with the most impact, like electrifying a fossil fueled sector of the economy or making us a multi-planetary species. The profits are reinvested to accomplish these goals. He ends up richer than ever. It isn't clear that the…

It is not a competition.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#170

Post by wahern »

macspoofing wrote: post #137
wahern wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somewhere between 32% and 75% of American donations are to churches or church-affiliated organizations. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/30/religious-p... Myanmar is an exceptionally devout Buddhist society with many monasteries supported through traditional almsgiving. I suspect that's why Myanmar tops even the U.S. in the World Giving Index, which merely asks whether you've donated money or time (volun…

>Not that faith-based giving is inferior, but different people have different notions about what constitutes philanthropy and charity. I'm sure there are people who will find a way to invalidate this kind of charity. But it takes a level of dedication, discipline and a moral code to take 10% of earnings for benefit of your community and do it without legal compulsion. And it's the latter part that makes it different…

> But it takes a level of dedication, discipline and a moral code to take 10% of earnings for benefit of your community and do it without legal compulsion.

Absolutely, but I think that's pretty rare among the general population. IIUC, if I drop $10 into the offertory basket at Sunday Mass I'm counted just the same as a Mormon who tithes 10% of their income.

Post reply on HN